Originally published by Fathers Rumble and Carty Radio Replies
Press, Inc. St. Paul, Minn., U.S.A.

EUCHARIST QUIZZES TO A STREET PREACHER

1. Is your Blessed Sacrament still a cracker or a wafer?

The Blessed Sacrament is the Living Eucharistic Christ and it contains no
trace of the substance of bread. The accidental qualities of bread are there,
but veiled beneath them the living substance of Christís Body and Blood, Soul
and Divinity is present, the substance of bread having been converted into the
body of Christ at the moment of consecration. We Catholics believe that this
change does occur, that it can occur, and that Christ can be in the Sacred Host
that has the appearance of a cracker or a wafer. "It is not His body," is the
echo of the ages, the repetition of the Jewish complaint, "This is a hard
saying; who can hear it?" John 6:61. Here then is the boast of fallible human
reason. "Christ cannot be in the Host." "Who can hear it?" He alone who has a
right idea of God, of His Truth and Majesty, has a correct estimate of a limited
human intelligence. This doctrine is not for the proud. It is for the humble.
And unless we become as little children, unless we know ourselves to be what we
really are, it is not for us to believe this great mystery.

2. Christ becomes a piece of bread.

No. He does not become a piece of bread, nor does He become the appearance of
bread. Christ remains Christ, and merely becomes present under the external
signs of what was bread prior to the words of consecration. Christ has not been
converted into bread, but the bread has been converted into the body of Christ,
the external qualities of bread alone remaining. Reason has not a right idea of
that against which it would protest. Even when it has a right idea of the
doctrine, reason overlooks the fact that it is Almighty God who is the author of
this wondrous gift. Arguing from their study of the universe, men urge that it
is against the laws of nature, though no one has ever claimed that it is due to
the laws of nature. We do not ask the laws of nature to do what they are not
supposed to accomplish. In any case these men do not even know all the laws of
nature, nor do they know that these laws can go only as far as they themselves
desire that they should go. But they certainly cannot say that God is limited by
the laws He Himself has established; and it is no created law of nature which is
in operation here. It is Godís own immediate work.

3. Your doctrine is believed only by fools.

It is useless to assert that only fools would believe such a doctrine, and
then say that the doctrine is foolish because only fools believe it. Men must
prove that those who do believe are fools from other and independent evidence,
or else prove the doctrine is wrong itself. As a matter of fact, the assertion
that no intellectual man believes in dogma today is a dogma in itself for which
those who propound it offer no reason save that they believe it. Few would be
prepared to rank a Pasteur, a Manning or a Newman, a Sir Bertram Windle or a
Chesterton, or a Martindale, a John Moody or a Kent Stone as fools. St. Thomas
Aquinas, whilst treating of the Blessed Sacrament in his Summa Theologica, was
so far from suggesting a blind belief that he proposes and solves over 280
possible difficulties which might occur to the human mind, many of them far more
profound than any living adversary today could even conceive. He anticipated by
200 years the absurd arguments of the revolutionists of the so-called
Reformation, which has turned out to be the worldís deformation.

If so, then to be logical, besides crying, "Away with the Eucharist," we
should also cry, "Away with the idea of a man being God. Away with Christianity;
we do not comprehend it. Away with Hell; we have never seen it. Away with the
human soul; we have never touched one. Away with matter and substance; they
baffle us. Away with the universe. Away with God; and so on, from degree to
degree, from despair to despair, even to the suicide of reason." Perhaps your
credulity leads you to swallow the notion that this world evolved out of an
eternal nebula; that man is the product of organic evolution, etc. Let any man
publish a theory and you, no doubt, would swallow it hook, line and sinker with
whole-hearted adhesion, provided God be not mentioned. Offer to prove it, you
reply, "No need. We believe it, it rings true." Yet, mention God, offer to show
the proofs of Christian doctrineóyou will not even look at them. Truly, St. Paul
was right in his prediction, "They will heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will
be turned unto fables." (2 Tim. 4:3-4.)

5. Can Christ be in the Host?

Yes. Nor is finite human reason the criterion as to what God can or cannot
do, when the truth proposed is not against reason, but simply above and beyond
its capacity. We know that, if God tells us a truth which human reason could not
discover by its own unaided powers, that truth is bound to seem extravagant. The
presence of Christ under the appearances of bread is His work and the very soul
and bond of the whole architecture of Catholic and Christian doctrine. Human
reason could not invent it, nor can reason without revelation prove it. For if
this doctrine were a work of reason it might be fully comprehensible to us, but
it would be a natural philosophy, not a supernatural religion. Reason alone
tells us that the Living Christ could be in the Host, did God so desire.

6. Do you believe the consecrated Host to be the body of Christ because of
any signs in the Host itself?

We do not believe in Blessed Sacrament because we can realize or visualize
the full truth. Even a priest could not distinguish a consecrated Host from an
unconsecrated wafer unless he were told which of the two had been consecrated.
The consecrated Host looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it nourishes like
bread. There is no difference for priest and layman. At the altar the priest has
no experience at all of a change. Yet, after consecration, there is no substance
of bread remaining. The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are present.
Human reason alone tells us three things:

(1) The God who created the universe with a mere act of His will is
infinitely powerful, and not to be limited by the degrees of a created finite
intelligence.

(2) God is Truth Itself, and could not possibly tell us a lie.

(3) The Gospels are true history. No documents have had such a thorough
sifting. They have survived a deeper critical study, a more searching analysis
than any other writings have had to undergo, and that not only by men of good
will, but by the very enemies of Christianity. These three things are clear to
our human reason. Unless a man receives additional light from God he will be
unable to proceed, to grasp the full significance of the truths contained in the
Gospels. That additional light is given by the Church that gave the Bible to the
world. As reason told us three things, reason and Faith combined also tell us
three things:

(1) The historical Person described in the Gospel, and known as Jesus Christ,
is Almighty God, with all divine attributes.

(2) This Christ taught the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament as clearly as it
is possible to state it.

(3) He also established an infallible Church, which guarantees to maintain
the judgment of reason and Faith in accordance with Godís knowledge of this
matter.

We, therefore, believe with absolute certainty that Christ is really present
in the Sacred Host.

7. What have the Scriptures to do with your belief in the real presence?

They have very much to do with it. When we read through the Old Testament;
when we see there how God treated with the Jews; when we study the account there
given of the Tree of Life refreshing our first parents in Paradise; when we read
of the bread and wine offered to God, and then given as food to the soldiers of
Abraham by the High Priest Melchisedech; of the Paschal Lamb sacrificed to God
and eaten by His chosen people; of the manna in the desert, prepared not by man
but by angels; of the miraculous food in the strength of which Elias walked for
forty days even to the Mountains of God; tears come into our eyes, our hearts
ache, and a deep longing comes upon us, taking possession of our whole being. We
wonder what great gift from God all these wonders prefigure and foretell. If God
intended to give us merely ordinary bread, then He would be giving us less than
He gave to the Jews, and it is impossible that the religion of Christ, for which
the ancient religion was but a preparation, should not be more perfect should
not infinitely transcend the forerunner, even as Christ Himself infinitely
transcended the last prophet of the Old Law, St. John the Baptist, who said, "I
must decrease, and He must increase." John 3:30. Then if the Jews had the tables
of the law in their Tabernacle, surrounded by the visible glory of God, we may
half-expect to have the very author of the law in our Tabernacle, the glory of
God veiled out of compassion because too great for man to see and live. If the
Jews received a divine and very miraculous food to eat during their journey
through the desert, we, too, may expect a divine and miraculous food to eat
during our journey through the desert of this life - a food prepared not by
angels but by Christ Our Lord, under some form within our reach. That form
within our reach is fully spoken of in the sixth chapter of St. John in both the
Protestant and Catholic versions of the New Testament.

8. Do you believe in the literal interpretation of the sixth chapter of St.
John?

Yes. There is no other possible interpretation than the literal
interpretation. We agree with Luther who defended the literal interpretation
against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Oecolampadius, though with usual ill logic, he
warred against the idea of the Mass. He confessed that he was tempted to deny
the Real Presence in order "to give a great smack in the face of Popery," but
the Scriptures and all antiquity were too overwhehning in its favor. "I am
caught," he wrote, "I cannot escape, the text is too forcible."

9 Explain the sixth chapter of St. John.

Jesus in the promise of the Eucharist points out the superiority of the bread
which He is about to give them over the manna rained down from Heaven, saying,
"And the bread that I will give, is My Flesh, for the life of the world." John
6:52. The Jews understood Christ to be speaking literally and not figuratively,
for they say among themselves, "How can this man give us His Flesh to eat?" John
6:53. If Christ were talking in a figure of speech, in a metaphor, it would have
been His duty not only as the Son of God, but as a teacher, to correct the Jews
and say to them, "You take a wrong meaning to My words. You think that I am
referring to My FleshóI know you are a civilized people and that you are not
cannibalsóI am only speaking of a souvenir, a symbol, a token. See that
multitude going away from Me? They are leaving Me because they think I meant it.
I came to save them, to win them. I want them. Do you think I would let them go
like that if I did not mean it? If I could unsay it, do you not realize that I
would call them back and explain? Ali, no. I meant it so much that you, too,
must go, or accept it." The Jews would have remained had they believed that He
meant no more than a symbol or token. Christ knew that they would revolt at the
thought of eating His verv flesh, but He let them go with the idea which would
become a fundamental doctrine of His Church. Why did He not correct these first
Protestors of the Christian World?

10. What does the double expletive, "Amen, Amen" indicate?

It indicates importance. The double expletive of Hebrew when found, would in
our tongue mean, "Now listen, I am about to announce the most important point of
this discourse." Hence with emphasis does Christ say, "Amen, Amen, I say unto
you; except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you shall
not have life in you." John 6:54. Instead of watering down His statement Christ
drives home what He is proclaiming to His audience, "He that eateth My Flesh,
and drinketh My Blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up on the
last day. For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He that
eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me,

and I in Him." John 6:55-57. Twelve times does Christ tell his audience that
He is the "Bread come down from Heaven" and in four consecutive sentences Jesus
uses the double phrase "to eat My Flesh and drink My Blood." Hence His meaning
is unmistakably clear. He confirms His power and authority, saying, "As the
living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the
same also shall live by Me." John 6:58. But this doctrine of the Teacher
staggered the stiff-necked Jews who began to quit Christ. "Many therefore of His
disciples hearing it, said: ĎThis saying is hard, and who can hear it?"í John 6:
61. "After this many of His disciples went back; and walked no more with Him."
John 6:67.

11. Christ was only talking in the form of a Metaphor.

A metaphor, to eat oneís flesh meant for the Jews to abuse and calumniate a
man, to destroy his character. Do you think that Jesus meant, "He that reviles
Me has eternal life"?

12. But the last words of Christ say, "It is the Spirit that gives life. The
flesh profiteth nothing." John 6:64. Christ is not speaking of His Body in those
last words, but of you. You have not the true spirit of God in you, but you let
your earthly and natural reason create foolish obstacles. You judge as the
natural and animal man, who, according to St. Paul, does not perceive the things
of God. Have true faith, and you will understand even though you do not fully
comprehend this wonderful promise of Christ. But if you think that you have
everything explained to the satisfaction of your human reason, God Himself will
leave you without the truth. He has a strict right to our submission, body,
soul, mind and will, and God has sufficiently proved the truth of the Doctrines
He has taught by the mere fact of His having uttered them.

13. You speak about the promise of the Eucharist. Where does its reality take
place?

At the Last Supper Christ fulfilled what He had promised in the sixth chapter
of St. John. "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and
broke: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is My Body.
And taking the chance, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of
this, for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many
unto remission of sins." Mt. 26:26-28. In these words Christ, therefore,
literally fulfills His promise. This is My Body; this is My Blood-what words
could be plainer? The Apostles made no mistake in understanding Christ.

14. How could the Apostles understand Christ literally when He uses the verb
"is"? I have read that in the Aramaic language there is no verb to express the
meaning "to represent" "to signify."

The Aramaic language was rich in vocabulary. Scholars deny that charge.
Cardinal Wiseman many years ago proved conclusively that in the language spoken
by Christ there are at least forty expressions which meant "to signify."

15. Did the Apostles teach just what you are teaching?

The Apostles did not merely bless and distribute bread and wine, but they
administered what they knew and believed to be the Body and Blood of Jesus
Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. If they thought they were
distributing merely a symbol or representation or reminder of the Saviorís flesh
and blood, then the Catholic practice comes to smash. The Apostles proclaimed
that they were giving the Body and Blood of the Savior at His express command.
St. Paul in both the Protestant and Catholic text fully answers for the
Apostles. St. Paul wrote (eight years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel) a
letter to the Christian converts at Corinth: 1Cor. 10:16, "The chalice of
benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And
the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"
1Cor. 11:23- 29, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in .which he was betrayed, took
bread, And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body,
which shall be delivered for you: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for
the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the
chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until He come. Therefore
whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove
himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that
eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not
discerning the body of the Lord." Here then is fully stated the doctrine of the
Apostles and the faith of the Infant Church in the Real Presence of Christ in
the Holy Eucharist. Notice the words Guilty of the Body and of the Bloodóhow
could a person he guilty, if he had merely eaten a little bread and drunk a
little wine, as a picture pr representation or reminder of the Last Supper? No
one is guilty of homicide if he merely does violence to the picture or statue of
a man without touching the man in person. St. Paulís words are meaningless
without the dogma of the Real Presence.

"Plain and simple reason," says Cardinal Wiseman, "seems to tell us that the
presence of Christís Body is necessary for an offence committed against it. A
man cannot be Ďguilty of majestyí unless the majesty exists in the object
against which his crime is committed. In like manner, an offender against the
Blessed Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of Christís Body and Blood, if
these be not in the Sacrament."

16. What did the early preachers besides the apostles teach about the Last
Supper?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century says: "As a life-giving
Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under the
appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be bread is not bread, but Christís
body; what seems to be wine is not wine, but Christís Blood." You can get
abundant testimony on this belief from many others of the Fathers of the
primitive Church.

17. Does the Greek Church believe in the Real Presence?

The Greek Church which seceded from the Catholic Church about 1,000 years
ago, the present Russian Church, the schismatic Copts, Armenians, Syrians,
Chaldeans and in fact all the Oriental sects, still hold fast to the teaching of
the Infant Church in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity
of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

18. Did all Christendom believe in the literal understanding of the Saviorís
words?

Yes. Berengarius was the first to openly attack it in the year 1088, but he
retracted before he died. In the sixteenth century it became the hobby of the
day to give new and arbitrary interpretations to the Scriptures in accordance
with oneís own private whim and fancy. The amount of religious and intellectual
chaos brought about by this confusion is seen in the fact that within
seventy-five years over 200 different meanings were given to the four simple
words of Christ: "This is My Body." At Ingolstadt in 1577 Christopher Rasperger
wrote a whole book entitled, "Two Hundred Interpretations of the words ĎThis is
My Body.í"It shows how hard pressed the inventors of new sects were to explain
away the real meaning of those four words, which were understood in just one
sense for a thousand years and now are not understood by millions.

19. I still cannot believe in your literal interpretation.

Unless the words of Christ are taken in the literal sense and at their face
value they become meaningless, incoher-ent and worse than that, Christ would be,
then, an arch-deceiver. For He certainly taught, allowed, encouraged, and
stressed the literal interpretation of His words and the figurative
interpretation of the Protestant mind has no basis of plausibility. You must
remember that the Jews deserted Christ simply because He meant just what He
said, "This is My Body." Such a phrase involves a mystery, but you believe in
the Incarnation and the Trinity, which are likewise mysteries but revealed
truths far beyond our capacity fully to understand. We do not reject mysteries
to the ash can because we donít understand them, but we believe them on the
authority of the Revealer.

20. Christ also said, "I am the door. I am the vine." If you say bread is His
Body then He is also a door and actually a grapevine.

You resort to any excuse to deny the meaning of Christ. There is no parallel
between those two cases. "I am the door," can have a metaphorical sense. For
Christ is like a door, since I go to Heaven through Him; He is like a vine,
because all the sap of my spiritual life comes through Him. But the bread is in
no way like His Body or His Flesh. Either it changed into His actual Body, or
the expression "This is My Body" is nonsense. It is misery that God should have
to force a Gift upon you, which you should accept with deep faith, gratitude,
and love. But let us turn to St. Paul, who knew and spoke with Christ. Have you
never read his words, "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of
the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord."
Why, in the Catacombs, did the early Christians depict the Blessed Sacrament
upon the very walls as a loaf of bread with the sign of a fish above it - the
fish which is represented in the Greek language (ixthus) whose letters are the
initials for, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior?" Why did St. Ignatius, in the
second century, declare that the Docetae were false Christians, because they "do
not receive the Eucharist, not admitting that it is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus
Christ which was tormented for us?" Why, in the fourth century, did St. Ambrose
appeal to the Power of Almighty God for this very remarkable change? "The Lord
spoke," he writes, "and the Heavens were made. See how powerful is the word of
Christ. And if it has such power that things begin to be where there was
nothing, how much more powerful when something already existing has to be
changed. The Body of Christ was not there before consecration, but after
consecration, I tell you that the Body of Christ is there."

21. How is Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament?

The Fourth General Council of the Lateran, in 1215, defined that "the Body
and Blood of Christ are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar by
Transubstantiation." Transubstantiation is a changing across from one substance
to another. A transcontinental railroad will take a person from New York to San
Francisco but it does not change New York into San Francisco. Take the word
"transformation." A carpenter can transform a log of wood into all kinds of
furniture. He gives the wood another form or shape. In Transubstantiation it is
a question not of another form or shape, but of another substance. Hydrogen and
oxygen are two gaseous substances, but we know that they can be changed into the
substance of water. So also, Transubstantiation changes the substance of bread
into the Substance of the Body of Christ. When hydrogen and oxygen are changed
into water they lose their previous form or gaseous appearance whereas the bread
retains its previous appearance, the substance alone being changed. The word
"Transubstantiation," therefore, is used by the Catholic Church to show that the
substance of bread, which was present before the consecration, has been changed
into the Substance of Our Lordís Body, although the appearance of bread still
remains.

22. Your doctrine of transubstantiation was "invented" during the Lateran
Council 1215.

The Doctrine was always held in the Church, and in 1215 the Lateran Council
gave not a new doctrine, but merely the exact word which correctly describes the
origi-nal and revealed Doctrine of Christ. Not in 1215, but in the year 500
Faustus, Bishop of Rietz, wrote, "Before consecration, the substance of bread
and wine is present; after consecration, the Body of Christ and the Blood of
Christ.

Is it anything wonderful that He who could create with a word, should with a
word change the things He has cre- ated?" The Doctrine, then, existed. But in
the eleventh century Berengarius used very ambiguous language when speaking of
the Blessed Sacrament which could have had very serious consequences, and in the
thirteenth century perceiving the actual growth of these evil consequences, the
Lateran Council insisted upon Transubstantiation as the correct expression to be
used.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is certainly contained in the words of St.
Ambrose (340-397) when he declares:

"Cannot, therefore, the words of Christ, who was able to make something out
of nothing, change that which already exists into something which it was not
before? .... What we effect (by Consecration) is the Body taken from the
Virgin."

St. Augustine (354-430) writes: "That which is seen on the table of the Lord
is bread and wine; but this bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes
the Body and Blood of the Logos."

St. Cyril writes: "As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of
Christ and His Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What seems
to be wine is not wine, but Christís Blood."

St. Basil (331-379) prays in these words of his liturgy, "Make this bread
into the Precious Body of our Lord and God and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and this
chalice into the Blood of Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, which was
shed for the life of the world."

23. If Luther believed in the Real Presence, then how did he explain it?

Luther always maintained the literal interpretation of the words: "This is My
Body; This is My Blood." In fact he said he was tempted to deny the Real
Presence in order "to give a great smack in the face of Popery," but the
teaching of the Bible and all antiquity were too strong in its favor. He
explained how Christ was present by using the word "consubstantiation" instead
of transubstantiation. He held that the two substances of bread and of the Body
were present at one and the same time. Since he admitted no changing of one
substance into another then the logical explanation for his theory is the use of
the sentence "Here is My Body or This contains My Body" instead of "This is My
Body." Lutherís explanation would place the Body of Christ "with," "upon ...
alongside," or "in" the substance of bread or wine. If Protestants believe in
the Real Presence there is no other way of explaining the literal meaning of the
four words, "This is My Body" than by Transubstantiation.

Christ did not say, "My Body is in or with this bread." He said, "This is My
Body." Now it is certainly not His body according to appearances. It must, then,
be His body ac-cording to substance, or in other words, God changes the
substance without altering the appearances of bread.

The Council of Lateran in 1215 condemned the Lutheran doctrine of
consubstantiation, that the substance of bread and the Body of Christ exist
together; the Zwinglian idea of a memorial supper; and the Calvinistic doctrine
of a virtual or dynamic presence, whereby the efficacy of Christís Body and
Blood is communicated from Heaven to those who are predestined to be saved.

24. Are you not guilty of cannibalism?

No. Catholics do not believe that they are eating Christís human flesh in its
natural form. There is a change of substance and nothing else in the Host. The
appearance and qualities of bread are not changed at all. Christ gives us His
Body in a Divine and supernatural way, not in a natural way, for His Presence is
not natural but Sacramental. The Catholic Doctrine does not suppose such folly
of eating Christís Body in a merely natural sense as we eat ordinary flesh.

25. Was the changing of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana the same
as transubstantiation?

When Christ changed the water into wine it was nothing but a kind of
transubstantiation. The multiplication of the five barley loaves and two fishes
that fed five thousand men, women, and children is a miracle of the same kind as
that of transubstantiation.

26. Your real presence idea implies a contradiction in that the same thing is
both bread and not bread at the same time.

You misunderstand our doctrine for the doctrine of Luther. We teach
transubstantiation and not consubstan-tiation. We teach that the substance of
bread does not remain after the consecration. What remains are the accidentsóthe
appearances, such as color, size, shape, taste, weight-in short, whatever is
apparent to the senses.

27. The famous Bishop Barnes of Birmingham proclaims that transubstantiation
was outmoded by the advance of modern science.

At the time he once again showed the world how absurd he is the physicists
were at work in their laboratories changing one chemical element into an
altogether different one. They were exploding the theory of the old school of
physics, namely, the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. Sir James
Jeans in 1929 declared: "The two fundamental cornerstones of twentieth century
physics, the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy, are both
abolished." Modern scientists have already produced one element from another,
thereby, giving the lie to Bishop Barnes. If scientists today can effect a kind
of transubstantiation of one element into another, who will be so wise and
presumptuous like Bishop Barnes and deny that power to Almighty God? If Bishop
Barnes still believes in the permanence and immutability of the chemical
elements (which is now thoroughly disproved) and if he still holds that you can
change the form and the appearances of the elements through various
combinations, but you can never change them into distinct and immutable elements
then we come back to the laws of nature to show that elements do change their
nature. If Bishop Barnes ate nothing but bread and wine for a few days he
certainly would have to admit that the bread and wine in his stomach was changed
into his human flesh and blood by the laws of nature. If God can through the
laws of nature change bread and wine into our own flesh and blood, then why all
the unwillingness to accept His Promise of the Eucharist?

28. Are there any signs in the Host proving that he is bodily present?

No. It is a mystery of faith. All external appearances remain as before
consecration, but the substance of bread and the substance of wine are changed
into the substance of our Lordís Body and Blood. The reason why we believe is
not in the Host as such, but in God. He has revealed this truth, and we believe
because He must know and could not tell an untruth.

29. Did not the Jews think that they were asked to eat the very body of
Christ? Yet He refuted them by saying that His Body would ascend to Heaven and
that the flesh profits nothing. Jn. 6:63-64.

When Christ promised that He would give His very Flesh to eat, the Jews
protested because they imagined a natural and cannibalistic eating of Christís
Body. Christ refuted this notion of the manner in which His Flesh was to be
received by saying that He would ascend into Heaven, not leaving His Body in its
human form upon earth. But He did not say that they were not to eat His actual
Body. He would thus contradict Himself, for a little earlier He had said, "My
Flesh is meat indeed and My Blood is drink indeed." 6:56. He meant, therefore,
"You will not be asked to eat My Flesh in the horrible and natural way you
think, for My Body as you see it with your eyes will be gone from this earth.
Yet I shall leave My Flesh and Blood in another and supernatural way which your
natural and carnal minds cannot understand. The carnal or fleshy judgment
profits nothing. I ask you, therefore, to have faith in Me and to trust Me. It
is the spirit of faith which will enable you to believe, not your natural
judgment." Then the Gospel goes on to say that many would not believe, and
walked no more with Him; just as many today will not believe, and walk no more
with the Catholic Church. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church
Christís Body is ascended into Heaven. But by its substance, independently of
all the laws of space which affect substance through ac-cidental qualities, this
body is present in every consecrated Host.

30. We Protestants believe that Christís Body is really present in the
Eucharist, but not by transubstantiation.

The majority of Protestants believe that His Body is really absent. Those who
do say that they believe in His real presence, yet deny transubstantiation,
illogically admit an effect yet deny the only process by which it can truly
occur. If there be no transubstantiation on conversion of the substance of bread
into the substance of Christís Body, then the substance of bread remains after
consecration, and it is bread and not the Body of Christ. People make a kind of
bogey of transubstantiation as foolishly as a man would do somewhat similarly if
he admitted a railway from New York to San Francisco, yet refused to admit that
it could be called the transcontinental railway.

31. The Apostlesí Creed, the Athanasian, and the Nicene do not mention
transubstantiation. There is no record of such a doctrine until 1564 when Pius
IV. put it into his creed. Are we to believe the early Christians, or the
doctrine of a thousand years later?

The doctrine is not in the three Creeds you mention. But they do not contain
the whole of Christian doctrine. They are partial statements insisting upon
certain doctrines against special errors of those times. It is true that Pius
IV. included the doctrine in his profession of faith, but you are wrong when you
say that there was no mention of the doctrine till then. In 1551, 13 years
earlier, the Council of Trent taught the doctrine explicitly. In 1274, 290 years
earlier, the 2nd Council of Lyons insisted upon the admission of
transubstantiation by the Greeks as a condition of return to the Catholic
Church. In 1215, 349 years earlier, the 4th Lateran Council consecrated the word
transubstantiation as expressing correctly the Christian doctrine of Christís
real presence by conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of His
Body. In 1079, 500 years earlier, Berengarius declared in his retraction, "I
acknowledge that the bread is substantially changed into the substance of
Christís Body." Everybody who possessed the true Christian faith, until this
year, 1079, believed in the substantial change, and there was no need to insist
upon the word, since no one denied the nature of the change. In the fourth
century all the great Fathers and writers admitted that by consecration bread
was changed into our Lordís very Body. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died
about 107 A.D., wrote, "Heretics abstain from the Eucharist because they do not
confess the Eucharist to be that very Flesh of Jesus Christ which suffered for
us." And that doctrine is all that is expressed by transubstantiation. At the
Last Supper Christ said, "This is My Body which is given for you." Lk. 22:19.
Now He either gave them His Body or He did not. But He gave them His Body, for
we dare not say, "Lord although you say, ĎThis is My Body,í it is certainly not
Your Body." However it was not His Body according to appearances and visible
qualities, and it could have been His Body only according to substance.
Therefore, our Lord first thought this doctrine of substantial change.

32. The elements do not change, for there is no chemical difference after
consecration.

Which elements do not change? In every material thing there are two sets of
elements quite distinct-substance and qualities. And no man has ever seen
substance; he has seen qualities only. Thus I see the squareness of a block of
iron, but it can become round, still remaining iron. I can feel its hardness,
though it can become soft in the furnace, the sub-stance being unchanged. If it
be black, it can become red; if it be cold, it can become hot; if it be heavy,
by great heat I can render it a vapor. The qualities, then, differ from the
substance, or we could not change one without changing the other. And if we can
change qualities without changing substance, God can certainly change substance
without changing qualities. And chemical differences are dependent upon
qualities. Granted the permanence of the same accidental qualities the same
chemical reactions will be apparent.

Father Faber, whilst yet a Protestant, well said, "I am worried about the
Roman doctrine because, whatever may be said of the proofs for it, I do not see
how any man can disprove it. If they say that the substance changes, but that
all appearances remain the same, then they say that something changes of which
no man has any experience and yet which reason must postulate as the reality
underlying all appearances and separate from them." When you say that the
elements do not change their chemical properties, I simply reply that the
elements of external qualities do not change their chemical properties, and that
no Catholic has ever imagined that they do. But the substance underlying those
external appearances certainly does change. The fact that qualities remain
unaltered is a fact of experience; the fact that the substance changes is
revealed by God, and cannot be known in any other way. Yet is it not more than
sufficiently guaranteed when God says so?

33. We have only the word of the priest for the fact.

No Catholic priest would himself believe it were it not the doctrine of
Christ. It would be the height of folly to believe it without solid evidence
that Christ had taught it. God created substance and qualities, and we cannot
deny to Him perfect control over them and ability to change them at His
pleasure. And when Christ says, "This is My Body," we have to accuse Him of
falsehood or else admit that it is His Body not according to the senses, but
according to the underlying substance which is imperceptible to the senses.

34. Is Christís Body anatomically and physiologically present?

Christís real Body is present. Anatomical structure and physiological
modifications belong to qualities possessed by substance. After the consecration
we have the substance of Christís Body present without any external
manifestation of His anatomical or physiological appearances, and the qualities
of bread remaining as the object of sense perception without any substance of
bread. That substance of bread has been converted into the substance of Christís
Body. And as substance is the basic reality, we rightly say that the Blessed
Sacrament is the very Body of Christ.

Father Dalgairns explains your question in these words: "This then is what
God has done to the Body of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It has ceased to be
extended, and all at once it is freed from the fetters which bound it to place.
It is not so much that it is in many places at once, as that it is no longer
under the ordinary laws of space at all. It pervades the Host like a spirit. It
uses, indeed, the locality formerly occupied by the bread, in order to fix
itself in a definite place, but it only comes into the domain of space at all
in-directly through the species, as the soul only enters into its present
relations with space through the body. Who will say that this involves
contradiction, or that it is beyond the power of Omnipotence?"

35. Would Christ be present in a crumb of the Host?

Yes. Christ is present, whole and entire, in every particle of the Sacred
Host. The human soul is also confined to no part of the body, but is present in
every part of the body. It is wrong to think that, by breaking the Host into
several portions, the Body of Jesus would be broken, mangled or dissected.

36. Christ is in Heaven. How can you put Him in the tabernacle?

No Catholic denies that Christ is continually present in Heaven. He is not so
present in the Eucharist that He ceases to be present in Heaven. He is in Heaven
according to His natural though glorified form. The same Christ is in the
Eucharist substantially, but not in the same way as He is present in Heaven.
Substance as such abstracts from limitations of place and space. Locality
directly belongs to the qualities of bread which remain after consecration, and
in-directly only to the substantial presence of Christís Body underlying those
apparent qualities.

37. Is Christís Body subject to processes of digestion?

The substance of Christís Body is not subject to processes of digestion or to
any chemical reactions. The qualities of bread, of course, behave in their
normal way, undergoing a change as they are affected by digestion. Our Lordís
substantial presence ceases as these qualities cease to retain those
characteristics proper to bread.

38. If poison were present before Consecration would it be safe to consume
the Eucharist?

No. People would be poisoned. The Church has never taught that poison could
be converted into Christís Body, and in any case you are dealing with chemical
activities proper to qualities, and not proper to substance as such. All such
objections are based upon notions excluded by Catholic teaching. And it is of
little use to refute what the Catholic Church does not teach.

39. Is not the priest who can accomplish this thing akin to the miracle man
of primitive religions?

No. The miracle-man claimed to perform his wonders by his own marvelous
powers. The priest says that the power of Christ effects the change in the
Eucharist, and that he himself is but an instrument employed by Christ, and
taking a very secondary place. The miracle-man depended upon the superstition
and credulity of the bystanders. The priest forbids superstition and credulity,
and insists upon faith in God, a supernatural faith based upon rational
foundations. The miracle-man attributed preternatural effects to natural causes,
whether spiritual or material. The Catholic Church attributes supernatural
effects (a vast difference!) to a supernatural cause. The miracle-man could
never prove any direct commission from God. The Catholic Church can prove her
direct commission from Him to the satisfaction of every intelligent man willing
to inquire into her credentials with sincerity. The miracle-man tried to perform
things wholly unbecoming to God, by means which have no re-semblance to those
relied upon by the Catholic Church, and for a purpose and end totally
different.

40. I heard you say that Christ is offered in the Eucharist as the Sacrifice
of the New law.

That is true. That offering of Christ in the Eucharist is known as the Mass,
and the Mass is the Sacrifice of the New Law.

41. There is only one Sacrifice for Christiansóthat of Calvary.

The Sacrifice of Calvary was a Sacrifice not only for Christians but for the
whole human race from the moment of the first sin. But whilst the death of
Christ upon the Cross was the one great absolute Sacrifice, the Mass is a true
and relative Sacrifice applying to the souls of men the fruits of Calvary.
Anyway the doctrine which denies that the Mass is the true Sacrifice in the
Christian dispensation is simply anti-Scriptural.

42. How do you prove that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Scriptural?

By religion we honor God, and the chief and highest form of worship has ever
been by the offering of sacrifice.

Now God demanded continual sacrifices of various kinds from the very
beginning of the human race until the coming of Christ, and it is not likely
that the Christian and more perfect religion would lack a continual and regular
offering of the highest act of religion. All the various sacrifices of the
Jewish dispensation represented and prefigured the Sacrifice of Christ on
Calvary, and derived all their value by anticipation from His death upon the
Cross. And if the Jews had to honor God by regular sacrifices, so too, must
Christians in the higher and more perfect New Law. But there is this difference.
Whilst the Jewish sacrifices were anticipations of the Sacrifice of Christ on
Calvary, the Mass is a recollection and constant application of that one great
Sacrifice to the souls of men.

43. It is little use your telling us what ought to be, unless you can prove
it as a fact from Scripture.

I can do so. The Old Testament predicts that Christ will offer a true
sacrifice to God in bread and wineóthat He will use those elements. And this
prediction is every bit as clear as the prediction that He will also offer
Himself upon the Cross. Thus Gen. 14:18, tells us that Melchisedech, King of
Salem, was a priest, and that he offered sacrifice under the form of bread and
wine. Now Ps. 109 predicts most clearly that Christ will be a priest according
to the order of Melchisedech, i.e., offering a sacrifice under the forms of
bread and wine. You may say that Christ fulfilled the prediction at the Last
Supper, but that the rite was not to be continued. However, that admits that the
rite was truly sacrificialóand the fact is that it has been continued in exactly
the same sense. It was predicted that it would continue. After foretelling the
rejection of the Jewish priesthood, the Prophet Malachy predicts a new sacrifice
to be offered in every place. "From the rising of the sun even to the going down
my name is great among the Gentiles: and in every place there is sacrifice and
there is offered to my name a clean oblation." Mal. 1:11. The Sacrifice of
Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for a sacrifice apart from
Calvary, one offered in every place under the forms of bread and wine. The Mass
is that Sacrifice.

44. Were all the conditions of a Sacrifice verified in the Last Supper? And
are they still verified in the Mass?

Yes, to both questions. For a true Sacrifice we need a priest, an altar, a
victim, and a covenant with God. Christ was truly the great High Priest, and He
gave the power of priests to His Apostles, commissioning them to do repeatedly
as He Himself had done in their presence. "Do this," He said, "in commemoration
of Me." Luke 22:19. The power was to persevere in the Church, even as Malachy
had predicted. As victim, Christ offered Himself at the Last Supper. Taking
bread and wine He said, "This is My Body ... This is My Blood ... As often as
you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the
Lord until He come." 1Cor. 11:24-26. The separate forms of consecration
represented the separation of His Body and Blood when He ratified the Sacrifice
by His death on the Cross next day. The victim, then, is Christ under the
appearances of bread and wine representatively separated. This does not
interfere with the value of Calvary, for Christís real death occurred there, and
without it this representative function would be useless. Continuous-ly through
the ages the Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered daily in the Catholic
Church, and is today offered in every place from the rising of the sun even to
its going down, as Malachy predicted.

As for the altar, years after the death of Christ, St. Paul said, "We have an
altar whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle." Heb. 13:10.
Finally, there is the covenant with God. "This chalice is the New Testament in
My Blood," said Christ. 1Cor. 11:25. It had legal documentary value in the sight
of God. The Catholic Church alone fulfills Scripture in the Sacrifice of the
Mass.

45. Christís Blood is not shed in the Mass, and without shedding of blood
there is no remission.

Christ offered Himself with the shedding of blood on Calvary. Without that
shedding of blood there would be no remission of sin. Yet since the Mass is but
an application of Calvary with its shedding of blood there is no real
difficulty. There is a difficulty for one who denies the Sacrifice of the Mass,
for without that there is no fulfillment of Malachyís prophecy that there will
be offered in every place a clean oblation, without shedding of blood, from the
rising to the setting of the sun.

46. Did not Pope Innocent III. in 1208 first teach the Dogma that the Mass is
a Sacrifice?

No. He merely insisted upon the doctrine which had always been held by
Christians that the Mass is a sacrifice in the true sense of the Gospel
teachings. If the idea was not Catholic doctrine until 1208, why did St.
Irenaeus in the year 180, over 1,000 years earlier, write that Christ commanded
His disciples to offer sacrifice to God, not because God needed it but that they
might become more pleasing to God? And he goes on to show that the continued
offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Malachy which manifestly predicted that the Jewish people would cease to offer
to God, and that a new and pure sacrifice would be offered to Him in every place
by the Gentiles. Adv. Haer. IV. 17:5. If Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, could write
that in the second century, it is of little use to assert that Catholics did not
believe the Mass to be a true Sacrifice until the year 1208.

47. Catholics speak of the Mass as if it meant the real death of Christ, and
calculate its mathematical value!

No Catholic has ever believed that Christ is really slain in the Mass. They
have never gone beyond the words of Scripture, "As often as you do this you
shall show the death of the Lord until He come." 1Cor. 11:26. Nor did any
theologians attempt a mathematical calculation as to the efficacy of the Mass.
They knew that mathematics could never express it. The theological value of the
Mass is a perfectly legitimate question for any man to ask who seeks deeper
knowledge of Christian doctrine.

48. According to Cardinal Vaughan, Catholics think the Mass better than
Calvary!

That sweeping statement is not justified by Cardinal Vaughanís qualified
doctrine. "So far as the practical effects upon the soul are concerned," he
writes, "the Holy Mass has in some senses the advantage over Calvary." And he
was quite right. No Catholic thinks that the Mass in itself is better than
Calvary, for it is Calvary reapplied depending upon and deriving all its value
from Calvary. "As often as you do this," said Christ, "you shall show the death
of the Lord until He come." 1 Cor. 11:26. And that death took place upon the
Cross. Yet the Mass has this advantage that whilst the death of Christ upon the
Cross occurred in one place only and before a few people, Calvary reapplied in
the Mass can occur in many places and before multitudes.

49. Christ offered the Last Supper in the evening. Why do you not have Mass
in the evening instead of in the morning?

It is not essential that Mass should be offered in the evening, but simply
that the Mass should be offered. Mass in the evening, of course, would be quite
valid. The Church, making use of her God-given power to regulate all that
pertains to disciplinary matters, has decreed that the Mass can be celebrated in
the evening as well as in the morning.

50. Jesus gave Himself under the forms of bread and wine. You are not
justified in withholding the cup from the laity.

The fact that the Catholic Church does so is sufficient proof that she is
justified in doing so. However, let us view the theology of the matter. Jesus
gave Himself under both kinds, yet He was completely present in either kind. He
who receives either kind receives the whole Christ. In any case, Christ being
risen dies no more. It is not possible now to separate Christís Body and Blood
in actual fact. Wherever Christ is, there He is whole and entire. He is wholly
under the appearance of bread and wholly under the appearances of wine. In
receiving the Blessed Sacrament under the form of bread the communicant receives
the Blood of Christ also. In receiving under the form of wine alone he would
receive the Body also. There is no possibility of receiving the Body of Christ
without the Blood of Christ.

51. Why does the Catholic Church give Communion under one kind only?

For many grave reasons. This custom inculcates in a practical way that Christ
is completely present under either kind. It excludes the heretical doctrine that
it is absolute-ly necessary for Communion to partake of the chalice. It removes
the danger of irreverence to the Precious Blood by upsetting or spilling it. It
spares the recipients the danger of infection by their drinking from the same
chal-ice. It enables a priest to celebrate Mass and distribute Communion without
keeping the congregation an undue length of time, a reason which has particular
force in the Catholic Church where hundreds go to Communion at early Masses. It
secures uniformity of practice throughout the Church, for whilst flour is easily
obtained for the purposes of bread, and easily kept, wine cannot be secured in
sufficient quantity in many countries, above all in foreign missions. If our
20,000,000 Catholics in the United States went to Holy Communion tomorrow,
imagine the wine bill the Church would have to pay should all receive under both
forms. It is impossible in the Arctic Circle to keep wine. The priests caring
for the Eskimos carry raisins with them in order to make sufficient wine out of
them to celebrate Mass.

52. Your practice of one form is contrary to the Lutheran doctrine and the
Bible.

We are not going counter to the Bible. There is no difficulty about the sixth
chapter of St. John which Martin Luther declared must be understood in the
literal and not the figurative sense. Christ Who said: "Except you eat the Flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you," also
said: "He that eateth this Bread shall live forever;" and Christ Who said: "He
that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood shall have everlasting life," also
said: "The Bread that I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world," and
finally, Christ Who said: "He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood,
abideth in Me and I in him," said also: "He that eateth this Bread shall live
forever." When Christ commanded the Apostles: "Drink ye all of it," He was
speaking not to the lay people, but to his priests, who when saying Mass always
partake of Communion under both forms.

53. Whatever the theory may be, I object to the antiChristian practice.

The practice is not anti-Christian. Reception under one kind only is quite
sufficient for Holy Communion. Our Lord said simply, "If any man eat of this
bread he shall live forever, for the bread that I will give is My Flesh for the
life of the world." Jn. 6:52. In the early Church Communion was at times given
to little children by giving them a few drops of the consecrated wine only. The
martyrs would often take into the arena with them- the Blessed Sacrament under
the form of bread only, wrapped in linen, to give themselves Communion before
death. The practice is quite in accordance with the doctrine of St. Paul,
"Whosoever shall eat or drink unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and of the
Blood of the Lord." 1Cor. 11:27.

54. "Eat or drink" is not in my Protestant Bible.

It is not in the Authorized Version, but you will find it in the Revised
Version. Protestant scholars admit that the substitution of "and" for "or" in
the Authorized Version was an inexcusable mistranslation of the Greek for
polemical purposes. Honesty will out some day.

55. So the priest always has the wine, but does not give it to the laity!

The priest does not always receive under both kinds. If for some reason he
cannot celebrate Mass, yet desires to receive Holy Communion, he receives under
the form of bread only, just as any other communicant. If he celebrates Mass, he
must consecrate both kinds for the sake of the Sacrifice, the separate
consecrations being necessary for the representation of Christís death by the
shedding of His Blood on the Cross. Having consecrated under both kinds the
priest must consume both kinds. But even in doing so, he receives no more than
the laity, for both priest and lay communicant receive the complete Christ, and
more than the complete Christ cannot be received. But your objection proceeds
from a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist. The idea of the
officiating priest having a "drink of wine" which is denied to the laity does
great injury to the reverence due to the Presence of Christ, and is utterly
absurd. About an egg-cup full of wine is used in the celebration of the Mass,
and in any case if a priest did merely want a drink of wine there is no need for
him to vest himself elaborately and spend half an hour saying Mass in order to
have it.

56. Could a priest be in mortal sin yet give the true body of Christ?

A priest commits a grave sin of sacrilege if he celebrates Mass whilst he
himself is in a state of mortal sin. But that would not render the consecration
invalid. The words of consecration have their effect quite apart from the state
of the celebrantís soul. He consecrates in virtue of his priesthood, not in
virtue of his being in a state of grace or of sin. It is his loss if he be not
in Godís grace, but the communicant suffers no loss in receiving Communion from
his hands. It is the priesthood of Christ in him that consecrates, and that is
not less efficacious because a priest sins personally.

57. At what age can children receive Holy Communion?

Any baptized child could receive Holy Communion with profit. The early
Christians frequently gave Communion even to infants. However, the Church for
wise reasons requires in her present discipline that children should have
attained sufficient reason to be able, after due instruction, to know that the
Blessed Sacrament differs from ordinary food, and that by receiving it they are
receiving Christ.

58. Has a child of seven sufficient reason?

As a rule, yes. The law of the Church to receive Holy Communion once a year
obliges all Catholics who have come to the use of reason, and this begins to
oblige from about the age of seven. The average child of seven certainly has
enough sense to realize that the reception of the Holy Eucharist is a religious
act. It can know who our Lord is, and the fact that He is present in the Blessed
Sacrament. Such a child is quite capable of approaching with sincere faith and
devotion.

59. Do Catholics have to receive Holy Communion in order to be saved?

The reception of Holy Communion is not absolutely necessary for salvation, as
the Council of Trent defined when it spoke about the custom of the Infant Church
giving Communion to children immediately after Baptism and Confirmation. It is
necessary in the sense that our Lord commands us to receive it; otherwise the
words of Jn. 6:54 and Lk. 22:19 would be meaningless. This Divine Command is
observed in the Catholic Church today when she obliges her members under the
pain of mortal sin to receive Communion during Easter time, as prescribed by the
Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215.

60. The parents of a Jew who became a convert to your Church worried about
his fasting before receiving Communion.

Catholics abstain 3 hours from food and one hour from drink before they
receive Communion, out of respect for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. St.
Augustine writes: "It has pleased the Holy Spirit that in honor of so great a
Sacrament, the Body of the Lord should pass Christian lips before other food;
for this reason that custom is observed throughout the whole world." Tertullian
mentions fasting before Communion and the Third Council of Carthage (397)
ordered fasting before Communion, allowing but one exception and that was on
Maundy Thursday, when Mass was celebrated in the evening to commemorate the
Institution of the Eucharist. For the Catholics of today fasting is required,
unless they are in danger of death or incurably ill over a month or obliged to
consume the Blessed Sacrament at the time of a fire or profanation.

61. What do you Catholics get out of going to Holy Communion?

The principal effect out of Holy Communion is the spiritual union of the soul
with Christ, as mentioned by St. John 6:57-58, "He that eateth My Flesh, and
drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent
Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by
Me." This union with Christ unites us in the "Mystical Body of Christ." "For we,
being many, are one bread, all that partake of One Bread." 1Cor. 10:17. The
reception of this sacrament instituted by Christ increases in our soul
sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent speaking on this point says, "No one
conscious of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to
approach the sacred Eucharist without previous Sacramental Confession." It makes
us spiritually alive in order to receive it worthily and frees us from daily
faults and preserves us from mortal sins.

62. Why do Catholics genuflect?

We genuflect or bend the knee when entering our seat in church or when
crossing in front of the Blessed Sacrament as a mark of adoration to Jesus
Christ, who is really and tabernacle on the altar. Bending the knee is a natural
sign of reverence as Lk. 22:41, remarks "And he was withdrawn away from them a
stoneís cast; and kneeling down he prayed." Acts 9:40, "And they all being put
forth, Peter kneeling down prayed . . . " Phil. 2:10, "That in the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of those that are in Heaven, on earth, and under the
earth."

63. What do you mean by Benediction Service?

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a devotion of public homage to the
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It consists of singing of hymns of
adoration before the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a vessel called the
"Monstrance" or "Ostensorium" coming from the Latin word meaning a thing which
shows. In the Ostensorium we are SHOWING Christ Sacramented to the people.
Incense is placed in the thurible and it is waved three times in front of the
Blessed Sacrament, as a symbol of the peopleís prayer, "Let my prayer be
directed as incense in Thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening
sacrifice." Ps. 140:2. Two hymns composed by St. Thomas Aquinas are usually
sungó"O Salutaris Hostia" and "Tantum Ergo." After singing "Tantum Ergo," the
priest covers his shoulders with a humeral veil and then makes the sign of the
cross (which constitutes the Benediction) over the adoring people. At the
closing, Psalm 116. or "Holy God, we praise Thy name," is sung.

64. "After mortal sin, is it allowed to make an act of perfect contrition and
then receive Holy Communion without confession? Quoted from "Questions of
Youth," Kempf.

A. The erroneous opinion that this may be done in any case seems to be due to
a misunderstanding or misapplication of the following truths:

1. Perfect contrition (including the desire of confession) forgives mortal
sin at the time of the contrition, though the obligation of confessing the sin
remains.

2. Holy Communion forgives venial sins, if there be at least imperfect
contrition (attrition) for them; therefore contrition is among the acts
recommended as preparation for the reception of Holy Communion.

3. There could be some cases in which Holy Communion may be received with
perfect contrition only, without confession (see below).

B. Principles

1. If the intending communicant remembers a mortal sin which was omitted
without his fault in a previous confession (in which he had sorrow for all
grievous sins) that sin was forgiven and he is in the state of grace by
confession. Therefore there is no obligation of confessing this sin before
re-ceiving Holy Communion, whether once or many times. There is, however, the
obligation of confessing that sin in the next confession. (The question above
usually does not refer to this case, but to the next.)

2. If the mortal sin was committed since the last confession,

(a) Even though perfect contrition forgives mortal sin at the time of
contrition, one may not receive Holy Communion after mortal sin without first
receiving the sacrament of Penance.

(b) The only exceptions occur when the following two conditions are both
present simultaneously:

(b) nor can a confessor be reached elsewhere without seri-ous inconvenience,
depending on distance and time available. The fact that the usual confessor is
not available cannot be construed as absence of confessor in this
connection.

2. Necessity of Holy Communion. This will be extremely rare in the case of
youth.

(a) The following do not constitute cases of necessity:

(1) the desire to receive Holy Communion;

(2) the fact that one has been accustomed to receive daily;

(3) the fact that one has promised to receive Communion on that day;

(4) the fact that a whole class or group is now receiving;

(5) the desire to "avoid interrupting the nine First Fridays," etc.

(b) The necessity of receiving Holy Communion would be present if it could
not be omitted without serious scandal or defamation of character. About the
only case in which this would happen to youth would be the case in which one is
already at the altar rail before recalling the mortal sin. This is surely
extremely rare. But if it does happen, the person should endeavor to make an act
of perfect contrition, and then receive Holy Communion. He is not obliged to
leave the altar rail without receiving (Davis, III, 207-211).

65. Is it not better to receive Holy Communion rarely, with devotion, than
frequently without any devotion?

While it is possible ttat such a question could be used in an effort to cover
up reasons for infrequent Communion such as laziness, etc., this is surely rare.
Usually it denotes some doubt or anxiety about the matter, as revealed by the
varying forms of the question, e. g., "Would it be better to discontinue
receiving daily when one feels that he is not receiving with enough
devotion?"

A. Principles

1. Catholic theology distinguishes effects of sacraments:

(a) ex opere operator i. e., in virtue of the act performed, independently of
the merits of the recipient or minister;

(b) ex opere operantis, i.e., because of the acts and dispositions of the
recipient.

2. It is a matter of faith that the sacraments produce their effects ex opere
operato in those who do not place an obstacle thereto? Council of Trent, Sess.
VII, canons 5-8).

3. Note that

(a) the amount of grace conferred by a sacrament depends on the disposition
of the recipient (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, can. 7.)

(b) This disposition of the recipient, however, is not the cause of the
grace, but merely a condition of a richer outpouring of grace (Pohle-Preuss,
VIII, 73,122-142).

B. Application to Holy Communion

1. The effects of Holy Communion are:

(a) union of the soul with Christ by love;

(b) increase of sanctifying grace;

(c) blotting out venial sin and preservation from mortal sin by allaying
concupiscence, and consequently Holy Communion is

2. These effects are produced ex opere operato in one re-ceiving, if he
places no obstacle. The only obstacle in the case of Holy Communion would be the
absence of the state of grace (Counc. of Trent, Sess. XIII, chap. 7).

N. B. Even the absence of a right intention in receiving would not prevent an
increase of sanctifying grace, though grace would be received far less
abundantly than by recep-,.-ion with a proper intention. Lack of proper
intention could not be approved, since it would be a venial sin.

3. The effects of Holy Communion will be produced in still greater measure if
the recipient is better disposed.

Therefore it is expedient that

(a) one be free from deliberate venial sin, and

(b) one make a preparation and thanksgiving at Holy Communion (demanded in
any event by reverence to the Sacrament) (Pius X, Decree on Frequent Communion,
Dec. 20, 1905).

C. Concerning the Specific Question

1. The question is somewhat misleading. It implies that there is choice only
between infrequent Communion with devotion, and frequent Communion without any
devotion. This will hardly be the case.

2. The term "devotion" is not at all clear. There is great danger that one
interpret devotion entirely as feeling or emotion. It may be true that
communicating infrequently one experiences more feeling of devotion. But this
does not prove that the absence of such feeling is the absence of devotion; for
feeling, however useful, is not essential.

3. One who deprives himself of frequent Communion in order to receive with
greater "devotion" is actually preferring to miss the effects of Holy Communion
ex opere operato many times, in order to gain the doubtful advantage of
receiving the effects only once, though perhaps in greater measure. This is to
be deplored.

4. It could be said that one Holy Communion is about the best preparation we
can make for another Holy Communion. One is better disposed by the graces of the
sacrament than by oneís personal efforts, though the latter are also
de-sirable.

5. The best effects are obtained by

(a) receiving often,

(b) with as much reverence, love, etc., as one can evoke by earnest
effort.

6. So long as this earnest effort is present, one need not be disturbed by
any lack of feeling of devotion.

66. Why donít I get better even after frequent Communion?

A. Obviously, if one meant by "frequent" Communion only that he has increased
the number slightly, the answer would be that:

1. One has not really received frequently, and

2. Consequently any failure to improve is no argument against frequent Holy
Communion.

B. Some of the effects of Holy Communion cannot be perceived or measured.
Thus

1. The degree of union with Christ;

2. Increase of sanctifying grace;

3. The blotting out of venial sin.

Therefore we cannot say "I donít get better" in regard to these.

C. The statement "I donít get better," however, usually re-fers to apparent
absence of progress in avoiding sins and practicing virtues. Two considerations
apply here:

1. Progress can be considered not only absolutely, but also relatively.
Although one may not commit fewer venial sins after Holy Communion, yet actually
one may be committing fewer in proportion to the number and violence of
temptations. In other words: How do we know that we would not be much worse
without frequent Communion?

2. If there is actually no improvement,

(a) the fault cannot he in the sacrament;

(b) the fault must lie in the recipient.

D. Obstacles to improvement on the part of the recipient.

The individual may have been led into one of two errors:

1. The stressing of the minimum requirements for Holy Communion (state of
grace and right intention) may have created the erroneous impression that other
dispositions are of little consequence. But it would be a mistake to consider
"not absolutely necessary" the equivalent of "not desirable or recommended."

2. The encouragement to frequent reception of Holy Com-munion may have left
the erroneous impression that Holy Communion is an end in itself, i. e., that
with the reception everything is accomplished. But the sacraments, including the
Holy Eucharist, are not ends in themselves; they are "the principal means of
sanctification and salvation" (Canon Law, c. 731).

1. If there is no improvement, desirable dispositions may be lacking.

(a) Desirable dispositions are:

(1) freedom from venial sin. Pius X: "It is most expedient that those who
communicate frequently or daily should be free from venial sins" (Decree on
Frequent Communion, Dec. 20, 1905, art. 3).

(2) proper preparation and thanksgiving. Pius X: "Whereas the sacraments of
the New Law, though they may take effect ex opera operator nevertheless produce
a greater effect in proportion as the dispositions of the recipient are better,
therefore, care is to be taken that Holy Communion be pre-ceded by serious
preparation, and followed by a suitable thanksgiving, according to each oneís
strength, circum-stances, and duties" (Same Decree, art. 4).

(b) Regarding preparation and thanksgiving:

(1) A purely passive behavior is not sufficient, as is evident from the
condemnation by Innocent XI (A. D. 1687) of an opinion of the Quietist M. de
Molinos;

2. If there is no improvement, it may he because one fails to use the graces
received.

(a) Holy Communion does not make one a saint without his own personal effort.
Not he becomes holy who receives much grace, but he who uses that grace (i.e.,
actual grace).

(b) This effort must consist in:

(1) anticipating and avoiding the unnecessary occasions of sin;

(2) resisting temptation when it occurs.

It will be extremely useful to concentrate on faults and sins to be avoided,
in the preparation and thanksgiving at Holy Communion. But it is not enough
simply to resolve that we will do something. We ought to discuss in the presence
of Jesus how we may accomplish it. We know the situations in which we fail; we
should know when and why we fail. A definite plan to cover the circumstances,
made in the presence of Jesus and with His grace, will undoubtedly help to
overcome our failings.

The sacrament gives grace, and the more often we receive and the better our
dispositions, the more grace we receive. If we actually use that grace "it is
impossible but that daily com-municants should gradually emancipate themselves
even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto" (Pius X, Decree on
Frequent Communion, art. 3).

67. Can Holy Communion really he received for others?

Many questions in varying form have as common element the point stated here.
It is to the credit of youth that, in spite of frequent use of the expression
"offering Holy Communion for others," it finds difficulty understanding how this
can be. For to "offer up Holy Communion for another person" is, strictly
speaking, impossible. The effects of Holy Communion (see Q. II) can be received
only by the one actually receiving Holy Com-munion, and cannot be transferred to
others. St. Thomas, speaking of Penance, says: "A person cannot receive a
sacrament for somebody else, because in a sacrament grace is given to the one
who receives it and not to another" (Summ. Theol., Suppl. q. 13, art. 2, ad 2).
Of Holy Communion he says specifically: "No help can accrue to a person from the
fact that another, or even several others, receive the body of Our Lord" (III,
q. 79, art. 7, ad 3). Again, commenting on Chapter 6 of St. Johnís Gospel, he
says: "It follows, therefore, that the laity who receive Holy Communion for the
souls in Purgatory err" (Sup. Joan., chap. 6, lect. 6, n. 7).

(Of course the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be applied to
others.)

B. In receiving Holy Communion, the faithful perform other good works:
prayer, etc. Can these be,applied to others? Distinguish: (1) Merit; (2)
Satisfaction; (3) Impetration. (For details see outline: Value of Prayers and
Good Works, etc.)

1. The merit of good works cannot be applied to others.

2. The satisfactory value of good works can be offered for others. Receiving
Holy Communion may involve a certain amount of self-denial or penance, such as
fasting, arising early, walking a great distance, praying in spite of
distractions, and the like. The value of these as satisfaction may be applied to
others, e. g., to the Poor Souls.

3. The impetratory value of prayers can benefit others, i.e., one can and
should pray for others at Holy Commun-ion. "It is generally held that the
prayers of petition made in the presence of the Eucharistic Lord are more
readily heard by God" (Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IX, p. 231, 6 edit., St.
Louis Herder, 1931).

(On the whole question see Orate Fratres, IX [1935], 512-515.)

Note: No contrary argument can be drawn from the fact that "Spiritual
Bouquets" list "Holy Communions" among the things one promises to do for
another. For theological truth cannot be deduced from any custom, no matter how
widespread. On the contrary, custom should follow theological truth and express
it correctly. Therefore instead of "Holy Communions" it would be better to print
"Special Prayers at Holy Communion" or something similar.